Contents
- Introduction
- Our commitment
- Summary
- Collecting equality monitoring data
- Indicator 1
- Indicator 2
- Indicator 3
- Indicator 4
- Indicator 5
- Indicator 6
- Indicator 7
- Indicator 8
- Indicator 9
- Appendix: Workforce Race Equality Standard indicators
Introduction
Our Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) report for 2025 uses 9 specific indicators. They enable us to compare the experiences of colleagues in ethnic minority backgrounds with those of colleagues in White ethnic groups. We do this so we can develop how we ensure equitable outcomes for all colleagues.
Our commitment
We publish this report to be transparent and show our commitment to providing a fair and inclusive environment for our colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Summary
Representation
A continued area of focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy is improving representation to reflect the labour market representation for people in ethnic minority groups.
- Overall ethnic minority background representation at CQC increased from 15.8% in 2024 to 17.8% in 2025.
- Out of a total of 3,225 colleagues, 573 are from an ethnic minority background. This figure has increased by 93 on the 480 from 2024.
Recruitment
A continued area of focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy is to improve the adverse impacts at each stage of the recruitment process.
- Applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds remain less likely to be appointed compared with applicants in White ethnic groups.
Inclusion
Activity to improve inclusion is a key focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy.
- Respondents to our June 2025 Pulse Survey in ethnic minority groups remain more likely to say they experience discriminatory behaviour compared with respondents from White ethnic groups. This is also reflected in the results of the January/February 2024 People Survey.
- Respondents from ethnic minority groups were also more likely to experience bullying, harassment, or abuse from other colleagues in the last 12 months compared with respondents from White ethnic groups. This was also seen in results from the January/February 2024 People Survey.
Collecting equality monitoring data
We use data about our people to develop this report, which is taken from the Electronic Staff Record (ESR).
Using this data, we show the total number of people employed in CQC as at 31 March 2025 and the proportion of colleagues who have shared their race/ethnicity through ESR.
Figure 1: Proportion of colleagues from ethnic minority groups in CQC, 31 March 2025
| Total number of colleagues | 3,225 |
|---|---|
| Proportion of colleagues from an ethnic minority background | 17.8% |
| Proportion of all colleagues who have shared their ethnicity | 94.4% |
- The overall proportion of colleagues from an ethnic minority background has increased. The total count has increased by 93 people.
- The proportion of all colleagues who have shared their ethnicity has increased from 93.2% in 2024 to 94.4% in 2025.
In this report, we also use data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey and comparison data from our January/February 2024 People Survey.
Figure 2: Proportion of colleagues from ethnic minority groups, 2024 and 2025
| Respondents | January/February People Survey 2024: count | January/February People Survey 2024: % of total | June Pulse Survey 2025: count | June Pulse Survey 2025: % of total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnic minority background | 247 | 10.8% | 297 | 14% |
| White | 1,757 | 77.1% | 1,645 | 77.6% |
| Prefer not to say | 274 | 12% | 179 | 8.4% |
| Total | 2,278 | 100% | 2,121 | 100% |
Indicator 1
Indicator 1 requires that we report the percentage of colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds in each of the NHS Agenda for Change (AfC) Bands and very senior managers (VSM), including executive board members.
CQC’s pay and grading framework is not always directly comparable with the Agenda for Change (AfC) bands. However, for comparison, we provide broad equivalents between them in figure 3 (see the appendix for more information).
Figure 3: Colleagues from ethic minority groups by CQC Grades and Agenda for Change bands, 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2025
| Category | White 2025 | % change from 2024 | Ethnic minority 2025 | % change from 2024 | Not stated 2025 | % change from 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Executive Grades (VSM, B9, B8d) | 83.2% | +5.1% | 11.2% | -2.1% | 5.6% | -3% |
| Grade A (B8b, B8c) | 79.7% | +0.6% | 14.6% | +0.5% | 5.7% | -1.1% |
| Grade B (B8a) | 77.6% | -1.3% | 17.1% | +2.2% | 5.3% | -0.9% |
| Grade C (B7) | 72.2% | -0.3% | 24.4% | +1.2% | 3.4% | -1% |
| Grade D (B6) | 72.6% | +3.3% | 19.6% | +2.9% | 7.7% | -6.1% |
| Grade E (B5) | 71.9% | -3.7% | 21.6% | +4.2% | 6.5% | -0.5% |
| Grade F (B4) | 76.3% | -4.2% | 14.7% | +4.4% | 9% | -0.1% |
| Overall total | 76.6% | -0.7% | 17.8% | +1.9% | 5.6% | -1.2% |
Data as at 31 March 2025. Comparison is with data from 31 March 2024. Comparable AfC bands are shown in brackets.
What our data is telling us:
- Grades C, D and E continue to have the highest representation levels (20% to24%) compared with the overall representation figure for colleagues in ethnic minority groups (17.8%). Grade B (17.1%), Grade F (14.7%) and Grade A (14.6%) are below this figure. Colleagues in ethnic minority groups are most under-represented at the executive grades (11.2%).
- Year-on-year movement is mostly upward. The largest increase in ethnic minority representation came at Grade F (up 4.4%) and Grade E (up 4.2%).
- The only year-on-year decrease was seen in the executive grades, which reduced by 2.1%. In headcount terms, compared with 2024, the figure for ethnic minority groups has decreased by 1 whereas the figure for White groups has increased by 19.
Indicator 2
Indicator 2 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds being appointed to a role in CQC from shortlisting compared with candidates in White ethnic groups for all CQC posts.
- A relative likelihood of 1 indicates that there is no difference. For example, ethnic minority background applicants are equally as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as applicants from White ethnic groups.
- A relative likelihood below 1 indicates that ethnic minority background applicants are more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with applicants from White ethnic groups. For example, a likelihood ratio of 0.5 indicates applicants from White ethnic groups are half (0.5 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as applicants from an ethnic minority background.
- A relative likelihood above 1 indicates that applicants from White ethnic groups are more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with applicants from an ethnic minority background. For example, a likelihood ratio of 2 indicates applicants from White ethnic groups are twice (2 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as applicants from an ethnic minority background.
Figure 4: Appointments from shortlisting, 2023/24 and 2024/25
| Category | White 2023/24 | Ethnic minority 2023/24 | White 2024/25 | Ethnic minority 2024/25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number shortlisted | 1,848 | 789 | 1,950 | 1,168 |
| Number appointed | 505 | 156 | 458 | 171 |
| Relative likelihood of being appointed from shortlisting | 0.27 | 0.2 | 0.23 | 0.15 |
Note: Data as at 31 March 2025. Comparison is with data from 31 March 2024.
The relative likelihood of candidates from White ethnic groups being appointed from shortlisting compared with candidates from ethnic minority groups:
- 2023/24: 1.38
- 2024/25: 1.60
What our data is telling us:
- Applicants from White ethnic groups remain more likely to be appointed than those from an ethnic minority background and the indicator has declined compared with 2024.
- There was a large increase in the number of shortlisted applications from people from an ethnic minority background, up by 379 compared with 2024. This represents 35% of the total shortlisted applications, up from 29% in 2024.
- There has been a slight increase in the proportion of applicants from ethnic minority groups being appointed over the previous year (25% compared with 23%).
Indicator 3
Indicator 3 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of colleagues in ethnic minority groups entering the formal disciplinary process compared with colleagues from White ethnic groups. This indicator is based on a 2-year rolling average.
Figure 5: Likelihood of entering formal disciplinary process, 2023/24 and 2024/25
| Category | White 2023/24 | Ethnic minority 2023/24 | White 2024/25 | Ethnic minority 2024/25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of colleagues in workforce (average) | 2,377 | 457 | 2,407 | 527 |
| Number of colleagues entering the formal disciplinary process | 9 | 3 | 8.5 | 4.5 |
| Likelihood entering the formal disciplinary process | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
Note: Data is based on a 2-year rolling average of the reporting year (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025) and the previous year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024).
Relative likelihood of colleagues from an ethnic minority group entering the formal disciplinary process compared with colleagues from White ethnic groups:
- 2023/24: 1.65
- 2024/25: 2.50
What our data is telling us:
- This indicator uses data for the past 2 years to produce an average figure. Whilst the number of cases involving colleagues from ethnic minority groups reduced in 2024/25, there was an increase in cases seen in 2023/24. Therefore, when combining this data, the average number of cases has increased from 3 to 4.5. When taking the previous 2-year average into account alongside a relatively constant number of cases for colleagues from White ethnic groups, the relative likelihood figure has worsened from an ethnic minority perspective.
Indicator 4
Indicator 4 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of colleagues from White ethnic groups accessing non-mandatory learning and continuing professional development (CPD) compared with colleagues in ethnic minority groups.
CQC has 2 types of learning routes:
Route 1: All colleagues can access many learning resources (online and offline) on demand through our learning management platform, Education & Development (ED).
Route 2: Any colleague who needs specific learning interventions that are not available through the learning management system (online or offline), does this through an application process, which is reviewed by a panel and either approved, declined, or deferred. This is an Individual Funded Learning Application (IFLA). The numbers in the table for route 2 are colleagues who have accessed the process rather than the outcome of the applications.
The data is based on the number of records during the timeframe (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025), compared with an average of the workforce numbers as at 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2025, to reflect the timeframe in question. This data is likely to include those who are no longer employed by CQC. For route 1, it is therefore possible that the number of colleagues accessing training is higher than the number colleagues employed.
Figure 6: Route 1 data from our Education and Development platform, 2024/25
| Category | White 2023/24 | Ethnic minority 2023/24 | White 2024/25 | Ethnic minority 2024/25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of colleagues in workforce (average) | 2,377 | 457 | 2,407 | 527 |
| Number of colleagues accessing non-mandatory training and CPD | 2,299 | 467 | 2,740 | 635 |
| Likelihood accessing non-mandatory training and CPD | 0.97 | 1.02 | 1.14 | 1.20 |
Note: Data covers period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
Relative likelihood of colleagues from White ethnic groups accessing non-mandatory training and CPD compared with colleagues from an ethnic minority group:
- 2023/24: 0.95
- 2024/25: 0.94
What our data is telling us:
- All colleagues have accessed non-mandatory training that was recorded on ED (due to the way the data is compiled, the total number of colleagues accessing non-mandatory training is higher than the headcount figures).
- There is little change to the numbers from the previous year, resulting in almost no change to the overall likelihood figure. The figure itself remains in the 'non-adverse' range, meaning there is no significant difference between colleagues in ethnic minority groups and those in White groups.
Figure 7: Route 2 Individual Funded Learning Application (IFLA) data, 2023/24 and 2024/25
| Category | White 2023/24 | Ethnic minority 2023/24 | White 2024/25 | Ethnic minority 2024/25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of colleagues in workforce (average) | 2,377 | 457 | 2,407 | 527 |
| Number of colleagues accessing the IFLA process | 91 | 24 | 102 | 21 |
| Likelihood of accessing the IFLA process | 0.038 | 0.053 | 0.042 | 0.040 |
Note: Data covers periods 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, and 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
Relative likelihood of colleagues from a White ethnic group accessing the IFLA process compared with colleagues from an ethnic minority group:
- 2023/24: 0.73
- 2024/25: 1.06
What our data is telling us:
- The number of requests from colleagues in ethnic minority groups reduced slightly, with a total of 21 requests received in 2025, compared with 24 in 2024. The number of requests from staff from a White ethnic group increased during this period, up by 11 to 102.
- The proportion of requests from colleagues from an ethnic minority group (15.7%) is slightly lower than the overall representation figure of 17.8%.
- There were 2 requests from colleagues from an ethnic minority group that were rejected this year (down from 5 last year). This has improved the application success rate figure (86% (up from 79%) compares with 93% for applicants from a White ethnic group (92% in 2023/24).
Indicator 5
Indicator 5 concerns the percentage of colleagues from an ethnic minority background experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives or the public in the last 12 months. This indicator uses data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey compared with our January/February 2024 People Survey.
Question text: “In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues (for example, from the public and people using services)”
Figure 8: Harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnic minority | 4.5% | 7.4% | +3% |
| White | 6.6% | 9.7% | +3.1% |
Note: Our People Survey question is slightly different to the NHS staff survey question: "In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues".
What our data is telling us:
- Respondents from an ethnic minority background (7.4%) remain less likely to experience this behaviour than respondents from a White ethnic group (9.7%).
- An increase of 3 percentage points is seen for scores for both ethnic minority and White groups against the previous survey.
Indicator 6
Indicator 6 concerns the percentage of colleagues experiencing bullying, harassment, or abuse from other colleagues in the last 12 months. This indicator uses data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey compared with our January/February 2024 People Survey.
Question text: “In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment, or abuse from other CQC colleagues”
Figure 9: Harassment, bullying or abuse at work from other CQC colleagues, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnic minority | 10.5% | 14.5% | +4% |
| White | 10.8% | 12.5% | +1.7% |
What our data is telling us:
- Respondents from an ethnic minority background are more likely to experience this behaviour than with respondents in White ethnic groups.
- A decline in the ethnic minority score is seen against the January/February 2024 People Survey, up 4 percentage points to 14.5%.
- The White comparator (12.5%) saw a lower increase (1.7%) and remains lower than the ethnic minority result.
Indicator 7
Indicator 7 concerns percentage of colleagues from an ethnic minority background who believe that we provide equal opportunities for career progression or promotion. This indicator uses data from our January/February 2024 People Survey compared with our June 2025 Pulse Survey.
Question text: “I believe our organisation provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion”
Figure 10: Equal opportunities for career progression or promotion, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnic minority | 44.5% | 34.3% | -10.2% |
| White | 44.7% | 36.8% | -7.9% |
What our data is telling us:
- Respondents from an ethnic minority background are less likely to agree with this statement than respondents in White ethnic groups.
- A large decrease of 10 percentage points is seen for respondents from an ethnic minority background, down to 34%.
- The respondent comparator from White ethnic groups (36%) also decreased but by a lesser amount, down 8 percentage points.
Indicator 8
Indicator 8 concerns the percentage of colleagues from an ethnic minority background who have personally experienced discrimination at work from any of manager/team leader or other colleagues (in the last 12 months). This indicator uses data from our January/February 2024 People Survey compared with our June 2025 Pulse Survey.
Question text: “In the last 12 months, I have personally experienced discrimination at work from any of the following: my manager, team leader or other colleagues”
Figure 11: Discrimination at work, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnic minority | 9.7% | 11.8% | +2.1% |
| White | 6.3% | 6.3% | 0% |
What our data is telling us:
- Respondents from an ethnic minority background remain more likely to experience this behaviour than respondents from White ethnic groups. The figure has also increased for respondents from an ethnic minority background since 2024.
- The figure for the White ethnic group (6.3%) is the same as in 2024.
Indicator 9
Indicator 9 looks at the representation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds on CQC’s Board compared with representation in our workforce.
Figure 12: Representation of people from an ethnic minority background on CQC’s Board as at 31 March 2025
| Category | White | Ethnic minority | Not stated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-executive membership | 57.1% | 14.3% | 28.6% |
| Executive team membership | 83.3% | 16.7% | 0% |
| Overall Board membership | 69.2% | 15.4% | 15.4% |
| Overall executive team | 75% | 25% | 0% |
| Overall workforce | 76.6% | 17.8% | 5.6% |
What our data is telling us:
- There were 2 Board members from an ethnic minority background. This is down from 3 in 2024.
- The slight improvement to the indicator figure is due to reduction in the total number of Board members, down 2 (to 13) on the previous reporting year.
- It is worth noting that at the time of the data snapshot, the ethnicity status of 2 of the 7 non-executive members was unknown.
Appendix: Workforce Race Equality Standard indicators (developed by the NHS)
Workforce indicators
For each of these 4 workforce indicators, we compare the data for staff from a White ethnic group with staff from an ethnic minority background.
1. Percentage of staff in each of the AfC (Agenda for Change) Bands 1-9 and VSM (very senior managers, including executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce. (Note: Undertake this calculation separately for non-clinical and for clinical staff.)
2. Relative likelihood of staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
3. Relative likelihood of staff entering the formal disciplinary process, as measured by entry into a formal disciplinary investigation. (Note: This indicator will be based on data from a 2-year rolling average of the current year and the previous year.)
4. Relative likelihood of staff accessing non-mandatory training and Continuous Professional Development.
People/Pulse Survey indicators
For each of the 4 staff survey indicators, compare the outcomes of the responses for staff from a White ethnic group and staff from an ethnic minority background.
5. Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives, or the public in last 12 months.
6. Percentage of staff experiencing bullying, harassment, or abuse from staff in last 12 months.
7. Percentage of staff believing that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
8. Percentage of staff in the last 12 months personally experiencing discrimination at work from the following: manager/team leader or other colleagues.
Board representation indicator
For this indicator, compare the difference for staff from a White ethnic group and staff from an ethnic minority background.
9. Percentage difference between the Board voting membership and the overall workforce. (Note: Only voting members of the Board should be included when considering this indicator.)